Well the description above of the upgrade talks about modifying the rotary launcher to make it stronger and more stable and reliable... that would be rather more important for accurate precise bomb release and totally meaningless for cruise missile launch.

a 0.5 second delay in releasing a 5,000km range Kh-101 wont affect its accuracy or performance in any way.

A 0.5 second delay would have an enormous effect on the accuracy of a dumb bomb dropped using the Gefest& T computerised bomb aiming system.

The old rotary launcher could carry bombs... what changes have been made to prevent the new rotary launcher from doing the same?

I appreciate that ideally the Tu-160 should not have to overfly its targets as that makes it safer against capable enemies, but against ISIS or the Muj in Afghanistan a bomb is a much cheaper way to deliver HE to precise points on a map. Guided bombs even more so as one bomb per target is more efficient.

_________________“The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

Berkut wrote:Nonsense. The upgraded frames will not be able to use bombs at all, neither the host or translation is wrong. They even *removed* that capability, just look on the underside pics of some freshy modernized frames.

What Tu-160M2 will be able to do is open to question.

Sorry if I am incorrect, did they remove the optical systems? I am not able to search for the recently modernized Tu-160s at the moment.

I wonder if we will see an expansion of the Tu-160's guided arsenal, I would love to see them stuff racks of Kh-59MK2s on there, after all, they are not exactly using the Kh-101 ranges to full extent.

Yes. The window on the underside is filled in (forget its name, Kaira?, Su-24M has same system). Here is for example one of the newest examples that went through the refurbishment;

GunshipDemocracy wrote:As you can see from previous conversation opinions are divided on this topic. I just wonder if Tu-160M is going to carry only missiles then what is to be carrier of FOAB toys? Tu-22? Tu-95?

Well 45tons of hypersonic/cruise missiles is helluva ordnance to keep NATO from next aggression :

Tu-95MS is just like Tu-160; they are not bombers but missile platforms. Tu-95MS isnt able to carry bombs either. Tu-22M3 and Su-34 will be the bomb trucks.

Are you sure it has been removed and is not just using a more retractable system?

With the number of new glide bombs and the potential to carry sat guided bombs rather cheaply I wonder why they would take away the ability to carry bombs...

What platform will carry the FOABs and other very heavy bombs like the FAB-9000 and FAB-5000 and FAB-3000?

Seems to me to be a little short sighted.

_________________“The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

GarryB wrote:Are you sure it has been removed and is not just using a more retractable system?

With the number of new glide bombs and the potential to carry sat guided bombs rather cheaply I wonder why they would take away the ability to carry bombs...

What platform will carry the FOABs and other very heavy bombs like the FAB-9000 and FAB-5000 and FAB-3000?

Seems to me to be a little short sighted.

Rather question of priorities. Strategic deterrence of western aggressors apparently has higher priority then precision bombing on this platform.

Besides about 40 operational Tu-22s is in RuAF. Wiki is maybe not the best source of info but up to 30 Tu-22M3M to be ready till 2020. For bombing Turkish gay wolves and FSA/IGIL Tu-22M3M can do the job.

Pak Da will end up replacing Tu-22M as that plane is also getting old and will need replacement eventually.

40 Tu-22 and 60 Tu-95 need to be replaced by something new so PAK DA is surely needed.

I thought there is more Tu22Ms in service than 40, Flightglobal says 70 in their "Special report - world airfroces" for 2015.

Tu95s can be replaced with that still unconfirmed production of Tu160M2 since they have same role, Tu22Ms however would require new platform for direct replacement. They tho might end up being indirectly replaced by two platfroms of different class Su34s and Tu160M/M2s might end up being only bombers in RuAF if PAK DA does not happen.

Re-write your message just a tad more dramatic and twist my words some more.

Considering they want 50+ of Tu-160M2's and each are rumored to cost 400+ million USD and PAK-DA is delayed "post 2023" instead of being operational by then (thanks to Tu-160M2) i don't see how it will survive.

We will see what they will do with Tu-160M2 but for the current modernized ones they are limited to Kh-55/555 and Kh-101. Which frankly is exactly as it always was.

The way i see it, PAK-DA is dead.

Well if what you say is correct (an no bomb capability for Tu-160M or Tu-106M2) then that logically means the Su-34 and Tu-22M3M will be the bomb trucks, which means you are likely wrong and that the PAK DA becomes critical to replace the Backfire in the theatre bombing role.

I suspect the PAK DA will actually be designed to carry large payloads internally including the FOAB as well as a large internal load of guided bombs... in addition to cruise missiles.

I suspect the Blackjack will remain the cruise missile carrier and the Bear and Backfire will be replaced by the bomb carrying PAK DA.

What is the point of stealth if you are carrying 5,000km range cruise missiles?

Considering they want 50+ of Tu-160M2's and each are rumored to cost 400+ million USD and PAK-DA is delayed "post 2023" instead of being operational by then (thanks to Tu-160M2) i don't see how it will survive.

It will survive by offering a capability they are clearly removing from the Tu-160.

If the Tu-160 kept its bomb carrying capacity then there would be little reason to make the PAK DA.

Despite its stealth design I suspect the PAK DA will be the cheap subsonic bomber... a bit like the Tu-95 is now but with bombs and cruise missiles rather than just cruise missiles, and with the bombs the ability to perform theatre missions as well as strategic missions.

_________________“The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

OminousSpudd wrote:But Shoigu said test flights by 2019. How does a project get delayed past 2023 if it was supposed to be in pre-production phase by 2019.

new technologies to be yet developed? requirements updated? or maybe Tu-160M2 can be a testbed for new avionics/coatings/engines?

Not to mention about carrying missions where endurance and stealthiness not speed is important factor?

I guess it would have to specifically come down to the Tu-160M2s. If the PAK DA's pre-production prototypes were extended past 2023 due to a change in its mission statement, you'd be talking a pretty radical change.

OminousSpudd wrote:But Shoigu said test flights by 2019. How does a project get delayed past 2023 if it was supposed to be in pre-production phase by 2019.

new technologies to be yet developed? requirements updated? or maybe Tu-160M2 can be a testbed for new avionics/coatings/engines?

Not to mention about carrying missions where endurance and stealthiness not speed is important factor?

I guess it would have to specifically come down to the Tu-160M2s. If the PAK DA's pre-production prototypes were extended past 2023 due to a change in its mission statement, you'd be talking a pretty radical change.

Even if PAK DA dies now, it will eventually come around as future unmanned strategic bomber at least some ideas from it.

OminousSpudd wrote: guess it would have to specifically come down to the Tu-160M2s. If the PAK DA's pre-production prototypes were extended past 2023 due to a change in its mission statement, you'd be talking a pretty radical change.

That´s one of probable explantions - say PAK "Armata" , a quantum leap in bomber technology. the other explanation is much simpler: so many new technologies must be developed and "mature" an with constrains of limited means that time must be extended. Then deterrence priorities are now put on Tu-160M2. For other tasks than strategic deterrence Tu-95&Tu-22 life will be extended.

Militarov wrote: Even if PAK DA dies now, it will eventually come around as future unmanned strategic bomber at least some ideas from it.

I guess "pilotless" option can be included in PAK DA for dangerous/one way missions.

Aren't strategic bombers the most expensive platforms generally? Look at the B1 and B2 programmes. I would quite imagine that the Tu-160 was probably the most expensive platform from the Soviet Union.

As stated before, an additional reason, as well as those good ones given above, is that the US is currently also in the early stages of a new bomber design.It might make sense to also keep an eye out on what the other guy is doing, which might refine the direction you yourself might take, hence a small delay of a few years. It might or might not be the case, but it is worth considering. They might come up with some good ideas, and others that turn out to be silly.These new bomber programmes are always eye-wateringly expensive, so getting it right within the context of what the opposition is doing seems a logical thing to do.

But Shoigu said test flights by 2019. How does a project get delayed past 2023 if it was supposed to be in pre-production phase by 2019.

Depends on the decision with putting the Tu-160M2 into production... if they do do that then it takes pressure off the PAK DA.

The Tu-95 is able to do the job fine but it is not a new design.

The Tu-160 is also able to do the job fine but is more expensive to operate and maintain and there are simply not enough of them to be a viable force.

The Tu-22M3M is not part of this discussion because it cannot perform strategic missions, but becomes related when you recognise that it also needs replacing too.

The question is... do you replace all three with the PAK DA, or restart production of the Tu-160 and use that and the PAK DA.

The question that has been answered... why bother with PAK DA at all when you are going to be building more Blackjacks why not replace all three aircraft (Tu-22/95/160M) with Tu-160M2?

If Tu-160M and Tu-160M2 don't have bomb capability then a bomber is needed.

Restarting production of Tu-160 will take time and money which will delay everything but will allow for instance the potential for the PAK DA to use some new emerging techologies.... like expanded widebody design for a large volume flying wing shape... even variable cycle jet engine that can operate in scramjet mode for high speed flight, and indeed photonic radar technology.

But Shoigu said test flights by 2019. How does a project get delayed past 2023 if it was supposed to be in pre-production phase by 2019.

Or even a more sophisticated wing shape allowing a fixed wing design with perhaps warping technology to allow variable lift without conventional wing surface controls...

Aren't strategic bombers the most expensive platforms generally? Look at the B1 and B2 programmes. I would quite imagine that the Tu-160 was probably the most expensive platform from the Soviet Union.

Even per weapon delivered I suspect the nuclear subs would be the most expensive... including bases...

Now that they have been given upgrades I rather suspect the strategic bombers will have rather more practical use in conventional wars with conventional weapons... not something you can say for an SSBN or ICBM field.

2019 was thrown around for PAK-DA before all this Tu-160M2 nonsense. It was never realistic. Tu-160M2 was always 2023.

I rather suspect some department in Tupolev has always been working on new technology designs and wing/fuselage designs and propulsion configurations.

I rather suspect they have supercomputers and software that would allow thousands of designs to be prototype tested in a few hours... with the most promising models just a 3D printer and a wind tunnel away from a test...

I suspect their might be issues with the US likely to demand any PAK DA to be counted as a strategic bomber even if it is a joint strategic/theatre bomber which will effect deployable numbers.

_________________“The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

Aren't strategic bombers the most expensive platforms generally? Look at the B1 and B2 programmes. I would quite imagine that the Tu-160 was probably the most expensive platform from the Soviet Union.

Even per weapon delivered I suspect the nuclear subs would be the most expensive... including bases...

Now that they have been given upgrades I rather suspect the strategic bombers will have rather more practical use in conventional wars with conventional weapons... not something you can say for an SSBN or ICBM field.

Video of the explosion and fire on take-off of a strategic bomber Tu-95MS of Russian Air Force (hull number "05 Red", registration number of the RF-94181) on the airfield Ukrainka (Amur region) late evening June 8, 2015.